[drmaa-wg] C Binding Spec 0.98 and GWD-I Doc

[Rajic, Hrabri]

I will do one more pass of the 1.0 C binding spec, remove the newly
introduced errors and submit it to GGF.


Regarding the Experience doc and the suggestions coming from Java/.NET
work I think that is the work that we needed to fairly assess the 1.0
spec.
The only question is if the collective pile of corrections and proposed
additions we are looking right now is enough to mandate restarting the
process.

JobInfo is something that we would need to introduce for the OO/Java
languages.  No way around it.

There is no need to rush publishing this document.  Let us all have an
opinion about it - not the details but overall state and how fully it is
aligned with the OO doc.  I would like Peter and Dan give their opinion
on this.  BTW, on one of the issues we have no definite agreement what
to do.

The only reason to publish this doc is discuss it in Seoul, but with
only me and Andreas there that is debatable.
Another reason to publish the Experience doc is to approach the GFSC
with it and argue that our experience warrants modifying the GGF
document process, but I would give more scrutiny to this and involve all
the active DRMAA members.

    -Hrabri
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-drmaa-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf
Of Daniel Templeton
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 8:05 AM
To: DRMAA Working Group
Subject: [drmaa-wg] C Binding Spec 0.98 and GWD-I Doc

Per my conversation my Andeas last night, I have removed the new job 
info structure and the DRMAA_PS_USER_SYSTEM_SUSPENDED constant from the 
C binding spec, as they are not allowed by the language independent 
spec.  I also made the changes suggested by Hrabri and Peter.  This is 
the new 0.98 spec.  This will likely be the 1.0 spec, mostly since there

isn't anymore time to argue about it.  Hrabri, if there are no other 
issues with the 0.98 spec, please relabel it 1.0 and submit it for
GGF13.

(The 0.98 spec does contain all the other changes that were in the 0.97 
spec.  This is because none of the other changes attempt to change the 
sematics of the lang ind spec.  Something that may be a problem is that 
the error codes listed in the 0.98 version go way beyond what was listed

in the lang ind spec.  If that is an issue, Hrabri, just delete them 
before submitting the doc as 1.0.)

Also per my conversation with Andreas, I used the 0.97 spec to build an 
Experiences document which contains our desire to have the two things I 
took out of the 0.98 spec.

Since we have no time to discuss this, I have simply done it.  I have to

wonder, however, how it is possible for the OO, .Net, and Java language 
bindings to use a job info struture (the JobInfo class), but the C 
binding isn't allowed to.  Before anyone gets any clever ideas, let me 
point out that the reason the Java language binding uses a job info 
structure is that Java does not allow multiple out parameters.  If we 
disallow job info structures in the binding docs, we disallow the Java 
language binding altogether.

Daniel